Introduction

Genesis Creation Days

Guest author, Jon Greene examines scripture to determine what the days of
Genesis looked like. Also included is a brief history of young earth
creationism and animal death before the fall.

Rich Deem

Though differences of opinion exist for various doctrinal
issues within Christianity, few are more divisive than controversies surrounding
the days of creation and the age of the Earth. For Christians who hold the
young-earth view, being true to God’s word necessitates believing the universe,
Earth, and life were all created in six 24-hour days, six to ten thousand years
ago. This is based on the contention that the “simplest explanation of the [Genesis
1] text... is that Moses intended the days to be thought of in the most common
sense of that term.”1 Thus, any interpretation that goes beyond a clear plain meaning of the text is
considered to compromise Biblical authority and capitulate to evolutionary
theories.

One difficulty with this view is most young-earth
creationists interpret the Genesis creation account through the lens of the
modern English Bible. While English translations can make it sound as though
the creation days were 24-hour periods, textual and grammatical elements of the
original Hebrew narrative suggest otherwise. Indeed, a literal reading of the
Hebrew text provides compelling exegetical clues pointing to prolonged creation
days. To understand why this is the case, one only needs to consider the chain
of translation. From original Hebrew, the text was translated to the Greek
Septuagint, to Latin Vulgate, to English Wycliffe, to English Tyndale. However,
the
King James Version, and finally the modern versions, such as the NIV, NASB, ESV and other modern translations
were translated directly from the original Hebrew and Greek.
Because every language is unique, some of the nuances of the original text have
sometimes been lost
in translating it into modern English.

The purpose of this
paper is to delve deeper into the “days” of creation. This is not an attempt to
denigrate the young-earth view, but to follow Paul’s admonition to “test
everything and hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). As Jerry E. White, President of The
Navigators, states: “I do not condemn those who prefer a young-earth
interpretation of Genesis, just as I would not condemn those who see an
old-earth solution in the data.”2 Both young-earth (calendar-day) creationists and old-earth (day-age3)
creationists consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. Both believe
the Genesis creation account is an historical narrative–not an allegory, myth,
legend, or poetic expression. And both support an ex nihilo creation and reject Darwinian evolution. Thus, both views
come from believers who are merely seeking truth and trying to understand God’s
message in Genesis 1.

The problem lies in
our external witness. Many unbelievers hold a naturalistic worldview because
they cannot reconcile the Bible with science. One of the best ways to engage
these skeptics is to use science apologetics to demonstrate the agreement of
science and Scripture. However, the insistence on a six-to-ten thousand year
old Earth undermines this effort and prevents a
large segment of society from taking the Bible seriously. Two Christian
apologists state this problem well:

“When the ‘young earth’ creationist insists
that the biblical evidence indicates an earth only six to ten thousand years
old, all communication bridges to the secular science community break down. The
communication gap widens and such reactionary creationist views are labeled as
‘folk science.’ The scriptures and the gospel are consequently dismissed as
meaningless.”4

And,

“Many non-Christians are driven away from the
God of the Bible by the young-earth claims which are, frankly, ridiculous to
most people who love science. It is a shame that people who love science, who
would like to know the One who created the universe, reject, out of hand the
Christian God, because they see Christianity as so unscientific.5

For
this reason, it is important we closely examine the controversy surrounding the
“days” of creation. In this paper, we will look at this issue from three
perspectives: (1) a brief historical overview of creationist beliefs regarding
the creation days, (2) a review of the creation days with an emphasis on the
textual and grammatical elements of the original Hebrew text, and (3) a
discussion of the “death before the Fall” issue.

BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The prevailing view
in the 17th century was the days of creation were 24-hour periods
and the creation was approximately 6,000 years old. This 6,000 year time-frame
was based on compilations of the Genesis genealogies done by Archbishop James
Ussher and theologian John Lightfoot around A.D. 1650. Based on the ages of
patriarchs in the genealogies, both Ussher and Lightfoot concluded the
universe, earth, and life were created in 4004 B.C.

In the 18th
and 19th centuries, new data from geology and paleontology
established the earth was millions of years old, which conflicted greatly with
Ussher and Lightfoot. In 1857, Philip Gosse (1810-1888), a British preacher and
self-trained biologist, proposed a solution to this dilemma. Because Gosse felt
obligated to uphold Ussher’s 4004 B.C. creation date, he proposed God had
created the world with the “appearance of age”–although the creation appeared to be ancient, it was actually
only 6,000 years old.6 For instance, Gosse argued trees were created with growth rings in place, coral
reefs were created fully-developed, and rocks were created with fossils in
them.7 Although Gosse’s theory was rejected during his lifetime, some young-earth
creationists continue to promote the “appearance of age”
view, most notably in the area of astronomy.8

In the late 19th
and early 20th centuries, Professor William Henry Green (1825-1900)
and distinguished theologian Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) noted gaps and
omissions in the Genesis genealogies. This suggested the creation was
substantially older than the 6,000-year timeframe Ussher and Lightfoot had
proposed. Today, many Bible scholars hold this view and believe the early
Hebrew genealogies provide highlights, but not a complete rendering of each and
every actual generation.9 For example, in his expositional commentary on Genesis, James Montgomery Boice
states:

“It has been pointed out by biblical scholars,
among them no less a scholar than Princeton’s B.B. Warfield, that the biblical
genealogies are not necessarily all-inclusive when they list a series of
descendants... they may (and in fact do) leave gaps, so that a person
identified as a ‘son’ of a person coming before him in the list need not
necessarily be a literal son but may be a grandson or great-grandson. Moreover,
the gaps may sometimes be quite large...”10

In the mid-20th
century, young-earth creationism was rekindled by publications promoting flood
geology, creation science and scientific creationism.11 The chief architect of flood geology was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a
Seventh Day Adventist who insisted the Flood was responsible for the Earth’s
geological features.12 Self-taught and lacking a formal education in geology, Price based flood
geology on the teachings of his mentor, Ellen G. White (1827-1915), prophetess
and founder of the Seventh Day Adventist movement. In numerous trance-like
visions, White claimed she was “carried back to the creation” and “Noah’s flood
had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in
the fossil record.”13 It is startling White’s “divine messages” became so influential in 21st
century Christianity.

In the 1960s, “flood
geology” was co-opted by John Whitcomb’s and Henry Morris’ book, The Genesis Flood, published in 1961.
Like Price, neither Whitcomb nor Morris had degrees in geology. Although the
book was extremely popular, many geologists
were critical of the scholarship.14 The following statement by Christian geologist W.U. Ault is typical of the
criticism the book received:

“The writings of these non-geologists [Price,
Whitcomb, Morris] exhibit a basic lack of understanding of even the fundamental
principles of geology... a number of basic points completely invalidate flood
geology... The serious Bible student will not seek to support the physical
aspects of Bible history with pseudoscience.”15

Despite the
scientific shortcomings of The Genesis
Flood, Whitcomb and Morris aggressively promoted the book, crisscrossing
the country, speaking most often at Baptist churches, but also conservative
Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, and Pentecostal churches. They also spoke at Biola University, Bob Jones University,
Dallas Theological Seminary and other seminaries and Bible colleges, spreading
the “gospel of flood geology.”16 Today, many Christians accept the Whitcomb/Morris model ignoring, or unaware
of, its scientific problems. That is the reason many pastors today still
fallaciously preach “flood geology” is the reason “seashells are found on
mountaintops.”17

Young-earth
creationists often quote a 1984 letter from James Barr, Hebrew scholar from Oxford, to support their
view. In the letter, Barr states he knows of “no professor of Hebrew or Old
Testament at any world-class university” who does not believe that Genesis 1
conveys the “creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as
the days of 24 hours we now experience.”18 However, that statement is taken out of context. In the letter, Barr clarifies
“it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as an
appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.” Yet, the reason young-earth
creationists cite the letter is to demonstrate the 24-hour day view is a matter of technical linguistic
competence.19

The old-earth
(day-age) view has many advocates. A two-year study by the conservative PCA
Creation Study Committee provides an excellent overview some of the supporters:

“In the 19th century, before Darwin’s 1859 Origin of Species
and in the midst of
much discussion of a geological basis for an ‘old earth,’ Robert Shaw described
favorably the possibility of interpreting the days of creation as ages.
Professor Taylor Lewis of the Reformed Church of America advocated long ages...
as did Donald MacDonald, a minister of the Free Church of Scotland... Of
the Old Princeton theologians, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield
supported a Day-Age approach, as did also J. Gresham Machen, O.T. Allis, and
E.J. Young of Westminster
Seminary... J. Oliver Buswell, Jr.... R. Laird Harris and Francis Schaeffer. In
his three-volume Commentary on Genesis,
James Montgomery Boice...concludes
by favoring a Day-Age view.”20

“Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible
and the way the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word ‘day’ is not
limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of
entirely undefined length.... There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting
the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length.”22 – R.A. Torrey (1856-1928),founder
of Talbot Seminary and editor of The
Fundamentals.

“It is certainly not necessary to think that
the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be
six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long
periods of time.”23 –
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox
Princeton theologians.

“But then there arises the question as the
length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer.
Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now
know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”24 – Edward J. Young (1907-1968), regarded as “the epitome of conservative
exegetical orthodoxy.”

And,

“[Young earth] creationists insist that the
days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes
the word ‘day’ is used with a broader meaning... it can mean a period of
indefinite duration.”25 “Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of
too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the
earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.”26 – James Montgomery Boice, chairman of the International Council of Biblical
Inerrancy.

THE CREATION “DAYS”

Martin Luther once
said, “If I were younger, I would want to learn this language [Hebrew], for
without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture... For that
reason they have said correctly: ‘The Jews drink out of the original spring,
the Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, the Latins,
however, out of the puddle.’”27 We can only wonder how Luther would characterize those of us who read the
Scriptures in modern English.

The debate over the
creation days is not about the inspiration of the Bible, or a “literal” vs.
“figurative” view of Scripture. Both young-earth and old-earth creationists
believe the Bible is inspired and defend their interpretations as being literal. The issue is the interpretation of the text of Genesis 1.28 According to Bruce Waltke, the young-earth exegesis is hindered by an adherence
to a “woodenly literal” reading of Genesis.29 Gordon Wenham concurs, stating the problem is “six days has been seized on and
interpreted over-literalistically,
with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other
instead of being seen as complementary.”30

Does the Bible
demand that we interpret the creation days as 24-hour time periods? To answer
this question, I will compare the young-earth and old-earth views of each of
the creation “days,” followed by a brief review of the exegetical support for
the old-earth view.

Day One: Light

The opening
narrative of Genesis 1 states:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and
the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face
of the deep. … And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
… And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and
the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the
first day. (Gen. 1:1-5)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth
creationists claim Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth) is a summary statement of the work
God performed during the creation week. They believe God created the Earth,
mature and fully-formed, on the first day.31 According to their view, Earth was alone, suspended in the heavens and the Sun,
Moon and stars were created on the fourth day. Thus, the light God made came
from a source other than the Sun.

Old-Earth View

Old-earth
creationists claim Genesis 1:1 describes God’s creation of the universe (ex nihilo) through the “big bang” event,
by which God created all matter and energy and ultimately all heavenly bodies
including the Earth, Sun, Moon and stars. According to this view, the narrative
shifts forward in time and changes from a cosmic perspective
to an earthly one in Genesis 1:2 (the void and dark). At that point, God
caused sunlight to penetrate the darkness and illuminate the Earth.

Exegetical Support

1) The Heavens and
the Earth

The verbs used in
Genesis 1:1-2 (i.e., God “created”
and earth “was”) are in the perfect tense32 and distinct from the wayyiqtol verb
form used in the remainder of Genesis 1. As Hebrew linguist C. John Collins33 notes, the wayyiqtol verb functions
as “the backbone or storyline tense of Biblical Hebrew narrative discourse,”34 while the perfect verb “denotes an
event that took place before the main storyline got underway.”35 Thus, the verb forms indicate the creation of “the heavens and the Earth” was
separate from, and preceded, the events of the first creation day.

The Hebrew phrase
“the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim
we ha ‘erets) is known as a merism, where words coupled together have a
different meaning than the individual words. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines hashamayim we ha ‘erets as “all the raw
materials needed to make sun, planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, molecules,
atoms.”36 Similarly, Vine and Grudem each equate hashamayim
we ha ‘erets with “the entire universe” and “entire creation.”37 This further supports the old-earth view that the entire universe–including the
Earth, Sun, Moon, and stars–were created prior to the first creation day.

2) Creation from
Nothing (ex nihilo)

Many young-earth
creationists disavow the “big bang” as being strictly naturalistic science.
However, it is important to consider the following statement by the
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (Summit II, 1982) on the
relationship of science and Scripture:

“It is sometimes argued that our exegesis
should not be influenced by scientific observations. We believe this view is
mistaken. While the Bible clearly gives more specific information about our
relationship to God than one can possibly deduce from natural revelation, it
does not necessarily follow that our understanding of the physical world, its
origin, etc., will also be more clearly deduced from God’s revelation in His
word than His revelation in His world. Since both are revelations from God, and
therefore, give a unified story, it seems quite permissible to consider all of
the evidence (scientific as well as biblical) to be significant to the degree
that each revelation can be clearly interpreted.”38

The young-earth
rejection of the big bang model parallels the Galileo controversy in the 1500s.
Galileo observed the earth revolved around the sun, which conflicted with the
Catholic Church’s interpretation of Psalm 93:1 (the earth being unmovable) and
Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 (the sun appearing to revolve around the earth). Through
scientific observation the meaning of Scripture was eventually brought into
clearer focus. As respected Christian philosopher William Lane Craig states,
“The Big Bang model …dramatically and unexpectedly [supports] the biblical
doctrine of creation ex nihilo.”39

3) Let There be
Light

Young-earth
creationists interpret Genesis 1:3 (“And
God said, ‘Let there be light,’”) to mean God created light that instant.
This is because English has a punctiliar
aspect, which means the reader views the action as taking place at a single
point in time.40 However, the Hebrew verb for “be” (hayah)
means “to be” or “to exist.” As Collins notes, the verbs in Genesis 1:3 (Let
there be... and there was) do not imply the creation of light, or a sense of coming
into existence.41 This supports the view that the illumination came from pre-existing light–the
sun. There is no exegetical justification for the young-earth creationists’
hypothesis that the light came from a non-solar source God created.

Old-earth
creationists use Job 38 to explain the events of the first creation day. Job
tells us, when God “laid the foundation
of the earth,” He “made clouds its
garment and thick clouds its swaddling band” (Job 38:4, 9 ESV).42 Based on this, old-earth creationists maintain the Earth was initially dark
because it was surrounded by a dense, opaque atmosphere. Then, in Genesis 1:3,
God caused the thick cloud cover to thin, allowing sunlight to reach the
Earth’s surface for the first time.

4) Day (yôm) with a Number

Hebrew scholars
acknowledge the word translated “day” (yôm)
has several literal meanings:
daylight, day, time, moment, or long era of time. The question is which
definition of yôm did the Genesis
author intend? Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary–approximately
3,100 words compared to over 4,000,000 English words.43 In English, we have many words to describe a long period of time. However,
biblical Hebrew has no word other than yôm
to denote a long time-span.44

Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal,
“first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However,
Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L.
Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as
no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical
author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew
(i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In
Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the
noun was intended to be definite... Thus they [the days of creation] are well
adapted to a sequential pattern,
rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”45

It should also be
noted that there are instances in Scripture where yôm used with a number does not restrict its meaning to 24 hours.
For example, Hosea 6:2 states: “He will
revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day,” referring
to Israel’s
ultimate restoration some hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated
“one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and
one winter, obviously longer than a 24-hour calendar day.

5) Evening and Morning

Young-earth
creationists claim “day” (yôm)
accompanied by the phrase “and there was evening and there was morning”
indicates the creation days were normal 24-hour days. However, there is lack of
unanimity on this point. For example, The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary states “These are not ordinary days bounded by
minutes and hours, but days of God... The beginning of each act of creation is
called morning, and the close of that specific divine act is called evening.”46

In biblical Hebrew,
“evening” (‛ereb) has several
meanings, including “sunset,” “night,” or “at the turn of evening”47 and conveys a “sense of gradual cessation or diminishing of activity.”48 “Morning” (bōqer) also has
several meanings, including “the point of time at which night is changing to
day... the end of night, daybreak, dawn”49 or “beginning of day”50 and conveys a sense of a “new starting of creative activity.”51 Thus, neither term restricts the meaning of “day” to a 24-hour period.

Much of the
confusion comes from the King James Version, which combines evening and morning
together–“And the evening and the morning
were the nth day.” As Collins notes, “Grammatically, the AV [Authorized
King James Version] compresses the two events into a sum, namely, the evening plus the morning were a day.”52 This is incorrect. A more accurate translation is found in the NASB and ESV: “And there was evening and there was morning,
the nth day.” Note the time
period from “evening” to “morning” brackets only the night. As Collins states:
“This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the author’s
[Moses] own presentation.”53

That “evening and
morning” can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90,
which is attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, “morning”
defines the beginning of life and “evening” the end of life. Thus, “morning and
evening” brackets the entire human lifespan. As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer
states, “Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of
each creative day... there were definite and distinct stages in God’s
creational procedure... it serves as no real evidence for a literal
twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the biblical author.”54

According to
Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar-IlanUniversityin Israel, this is consistent with the
way early Talmud scholars approached Genesis 1. He states, “A statement must be
made at the outset about biblical chronology of the six days of creation. Any
attempt to correlate the biblical text with scientific knowledge must
necessarily understand the term ‘day’ to mean a phase or a period in the
development of the world, rather than a time interval of twenty-four hours...”55

Day Two: Sky and Waters

The narrative of the
second day states:

And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the
midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God
made the expanse and separated the waters... And it was so. (Gen. 1:6-8)

Young-Earth View

Young-Earth
creationists contend this passage states that God created the atmosphere and
separated the heavenly waters from terrestrial waters during a normal 24-hour
day.

Old-Earth View

The old-earth view
is similar, except the events take place over an extended period of time,
during which God established a stable atmosphere and water cycle.

Exegetical Support

The English
translation, “And God said... And it was so,” imparts a sense of immediacy.
However, the Hebrew phrase translated “and it came to pass” or “and it was so”
is a waw-consecutive form of the imperfect verb “to be,” which merely
signifies a completed action. As Whitefield points out, this indicates the
commands have been completed and does not imply the action was completed
immediately.56 Thus, although God commanded the establishment of an atmosphere and water
cycle, there is no textual requirement it occurred within a 24-hour period.

Day
Three: Plants

The narrative of the third
creation day states:

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and
fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on
the earth."... And the earth brought forth vegetation... plants... and trees.
(Gen. 1:9-13)

Young-Earth
View

Young-earth creationists
contend God caused dry land to appear and then created mature forms of all the
plant life on the Earth–all within in a 24-hour period. John MacArthur
expresses this viewpoint succinctly: “There is no doubt beautiful waterfalls
and canyons and other features... were all made in one day... Vegetation of
every kind appeared instantly at His word... He created fully mature vegetation
with seed already in it, ready to be dispersed... God created plants, not
merely seeds.”57 According to their view, the light necessary
for plant life came from a non-solar source, because the sun wasn’t created
until “day” four.

Old-Earth
View

Old-earth creationists
contend God caused dry land to emerge from the water-covered earth over eons of
time through plate-tectonics and other geological processes. Then, once the
conditions were right, God caused plants to sprout, grow, and develop “after
their kinds.”58 According to their view, different
generations of plants appeared over time according to God’s timetable–each
perfectly matched to the environment and the increasing sunlight as the
atmosphere continued to gradually clear.

Exegetical
Support

The text does not say God
supernaturally created (bara) mature
plants. The command is in the Hiphil
verb form, indicating the land was to
be the agent causing the sprouting. The Hebrew “brought forth” (yatsa’)
is a completed action (i.e., imperfect verb with a “waw”
prefix). This indicates the plants germinated from seeds and grew into mature
plants, a process requiring months or years. Some young-earth creationists
claim God caused plants to grow supernaturally fast, so that they sprouted and
bore fruit in 24 hours. However, that would require that we interpret the words
differently than their usual Hebrew meanings and there is no textual evidence
to support that assertion.59

Genesis 2:8-9 also speaks of
plant growth. It states: “And the LORD
God planted a garden... And out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow
[tsamach] every tree...” Tsamach
means to “sprout or grow,” natural processes that require more than 24 hours to
produce a mature tree. Although God caused plants to appear on the Earth and
governed the growth processes (i.e., germination, sprouting, seed-production
and fruit-bearing), compressing the events of the third day into a 24-hour time
period distorts the Hebrew word meanings of both Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis
2:8-9.

Day Four: Sun, Moon, and Stars

The narrative of the
fourth creation day states:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to
separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and
for days and years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to
give light on the earth,”’ and it was so. God made the two great lights, the
greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He
made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-19)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth
creationists claim God created the Sun, Moon, and stars in an instant.

Old-Earth View

Old-earth
creationists contend the Sun, Moon, and stars were created “in the beginning”
as part of the “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). On the fourth day, God
caused the atmosphere to clear so these heavenly bodies became visible for the
first time from the surface of the Earth to mark signs, seasons, days and
years.

Exegetical Support

While English
translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars
that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God
“made” (‛āśāh)
the lights, not that He “created” (bārā’)
them. Asah expresses the idea of
producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing
something into existence that did not exist before (bārā’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies,
only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does
not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into
existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the
narrative focuses on the function of
the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and
moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons
and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these
things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.

It is also important
to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1
encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this
interpretation is supported by the Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim
we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter
and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in
the beginning” and not on the fourth day.

For these reasons,
many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as
meaning God hadmade the heavenly bodies prior
to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would
imply that God had made the sun,
moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16
should not be understood as
indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth
creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and
stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial
creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70

Day Five: Sea and Flying Creatures

The narrative of the
fifth day states:

And God said, “Let the waters swarm with
swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth”... so God
created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves with which
the waters swarm... according to their kinds, and every winged bird according
to its kind. (Gen. 1:20-23)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth
creationists believe God created all the creatures of the sea and birds on the
fifth day. They claim everything, both living and extinct, was spoken into
existence instantaneously.71

Old-Earth View

Old-earth
creationists contend God created sea creatures and flying creatures on the
fifth day. These creatures were created progressively over long ages of
time–not like a bolt of lightning.72 As creatures died and went extinct, God created new creatures to replace them.

Exegetical Support

The first task of
biblical exegesis is to discover the original, intended meaning of the words of
the Bible.73 The Hebrew term “living creature” (nephesh
khayyâ) means “living animated being”74 or “air-breathing creature.”75According to MacArthur, nephesh
literally means that which breathes and speaks of soulish life (i.e., mind,
will and emotion) as opposed to merely organic life.76 These sea creatures and nephesh khayyâ
may be air-breathing mammals such as dolphins, porpoises, and the like.77 “Great sea creatures” (tannîn) is
translated “great whales” in some English Bibles but has a broader meaning,
referring to enormous creatures.78 These are most likely creatures the Israelites were familiar with–possibly
whales or sharks79 or large crocodiles, which were common in Moses’ day.80 The text does not indicate when fish (dagâ)
were created,81 nor does it discuss other types of marine organisms.

As to the flying
creatures God created, all we can say with certainty is some flying creatures
were created on the fifth day. This may refer to birds or other creatures. The
word traditionally translated “birds” (`ôp)
means “flying thing” or “a thing that flies.” Thus, it can denote creatures
other than birds, such as flying insects or bats.82

While young-earth
creationists claim the text indicates these creations were instantaneous, the
Hebrew text does not support that view. There is a change from a singular to
plural meaning in Genesis 1:20 and 1:21 that is obscured in most English translations.83 The singular words in verse 20 are “nephesh the living” and “flyer.” The plural
words in verse 21 come about by the action of a Hebrew word translated “all”
plus the plural word translated “by kinds.” Thus, as Whitefield explains:

“Genesis 1:20 refers to a singular kind of
‘air breathing creature’ and a singular kind of ‘flyer.’ The swarm is singular
in kind, but a swarm composed of many individual creatures of that kind. . .
The two verses in sequence indicate the following: Initially, a single type
(kind) of ‘swarming’ creature and a single type (kind) of ‘flyer’ were
commanded to exist. Then the numbers of the individual types of ‘swarming’
creatures and ‘flying’ creatures increased, resulting in the use of the plural
word ‘by kinds.’”84

It should be noted
that these verses attribute the increase in the number of the individual
“kinds” to the creative (bara) action
of God. God acted in producing new additional kinds.85 This supports the view that the sea and flying creatures in the narrative were
created over long periods of time. It is also in harmony with the creation
Psalm, Psalm 104, which alludes to the creation and extinction of life,
followed by further creation:

When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
When you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send
forth your Spirit, they are created [bara] and you renew the face of the ground. (Psalm 104:29-30, ESV)

Day Six: Land Animals and Man

The narrative of the
sixth day states:

And
God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each
according to its kind." And it was so... Then God said, "Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image...
(Gen. 1:24-31)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth
creationists contend God created all land animals and the first humans, Adam
and Eve, in a 24-hour period. MacArthur states this position clearly: “Bear in
mind that the creation of Adam occurred on the same day all other land animals
were created. All of this occurred in one twenty-four hour period–one
revolution of the earth.”86 In their view, Neanderthals and other ancient hominids were human beings that descended from Adam and Eve.

Old-Earth View

Old-earth
creationists contend God created land animals on the sixth day. These were
created progressively, over long ages of time, beginning several hundred
million years ago. God created the first humans, Adam and Eve, much later,
around 50 thousand years ago.87 In their view, the hominids, such as Homo
erectus and the Neanderthals, are not human beings and preceded God’s fiat
creation of Adam and Eve.

Exegetical Support

The narrative speaks
of three types of land animals: livestock, creatures that move along the ground
and wild animals. The Hebrew word for livestock (behema) refers to large
four-footed mammals that are easy to domesticate.88 The Hebrew word for creatures that move along the ground (remes) refers
to the locomotion of small creatures–small rodents and possibly small reptiles.89 The Hebrew word for wild animals (chay) means wild or alive and comes
from the root haya that conveys living life to the fullest.90 Because this requires the attributes of mind, will and emotion; chay
seems to refer to wild mammals. As a result, it is evident the text does not
describe the creation of all land creatures–only certain mammals and perhaps
some small reptiles. Thus, we can only speculate as to when large reptiles,
dinosaurs, amphibians, insects and a host of other land creatures were created.

Some readers of
Genesis 1:24 take the phrases, “And God
said... And it was so,” to mean immediate action on God’s part. However,
these statements simply mean God’s commanded action was completed at some point in the past. It conveys no information
about how long ago the action took place or how long it took to complete.91 Thus, there is no textual requirement that these activities were completed
within the confines of a 24-hour day. A number of Bible scholars also note the
extreme improbability that the events of the sixth “day” could have been
accomplished in 24 hours. Gleason Archer comments:

“There it is stated that on the sixth day
(apparently toward the end of the day, after all the animals had been fashioned
and placed on the earth–therefore not long before sundown at the end of the
same day), ‘God created man in His own image; He created them male and female.’ This can only mean that Eve
was created in the closing hour of Day Six, along with Adam. As we turn to
Genesis 2, however, we find that a considerable interval of time must have
intervened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve... the LORD God
put Adam in the Garden of Eden... to cultivate and keep [the garden]... God
then gave Adam a major assignment... he was to classify every species of
animals and bird ... the garden must
have had hundreds of species of mammal, reptile, insect, and bird... It must
have required some years, or, at the very least, a considerable number of
months to complete this comprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts and
insects that populated the Garden of Eden... [It is] very apparent that Genesis
1 was never intended to teach that the sixth creative day, when Adam and Eve
were both created, lasted a mere
twenty-four hours... it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist
that all of Adam’s experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into
the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four hour day.”92

Similarly, Wayne
Grudem notes:

“An additional argument for a long period of
time in these ‘days’ is the fact that the sixth day includes so many events
that it must have been longer than twenty-four hours... [It] includes the
creation of animals... God’s creation of Adam, God’s putting Adam in the Garden
of Eden to till it and keep it, and giving Adam directions regarding the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, his bringing all the animals to man for them
to be named, finding no helper fit for Adam ... creating Eve... The finite
nature of man and the incredibly large number of animals created by God would
by itself seem to require that a much longer period of time than part of one
day would be needed to include so many events...”93

C. John Collins,
Norman Geisler and Hugh Ross express similar doubts that the events of the
sixth “day” could be accomplished within the confines of a 24-hour day.94 Ross points out that it is useful to note Adam’s exclamation upon seeing Eve
for the first time. His remark in Genesis 2:23 is happa’am, usually translated “now at length.” This is equivalent to
our expression “at last!” Clearly, this would be an odd statement for Adam to
make if he had only waited a few hours for God to create his helpmate, Eve.

Young-earth
creationists dispute the fact that hominids existed on the Earth before Adam
and Eve were created. However, it is clear that a great number of hominids
preceded the appearance of modern man on the Earth, including Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and the Neanderthals.95 These were creatures God created that walked upright, had limited intelligence
and later went extinct. The pinnacle of God’s creation, human beings, came
later, marked by the appearance of Cro-Magnon Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) about 50 thousand years ago. Unlike the
hominids, Cro-Magnon Man is identical to modern man anatomically and exhibits
all of the same behaviors, including a spiritual dimension.

The young-earth
claim that hominids were human and descended from Adam has no scientific
support. For example, recent DNA studies cast a dark shadow on any connection
between Neanderthal and modern man. Researchers at the University of Stockholm,
University of Glasgow,
and the Max Planck Institute studied Neanderthal DNA and concluded, “The
cumulative weight of evidence appears to decisively sever the link between
Neanderthals and humans.”96

It should be noted
that the genetic fingerprint of modern man, found in the mitochondrial DNA of
females and the Y-chromosomal DNA of males, traces back to a single male and a
single female.97 This lends amazing credibility to the Genesis account of humanity arising from
one man and one woman. It also negates the claim of evolutionary connections
between modern man and Neanderthals and other ancient hominids.

Day Seven: God Rested

The narrative of the
seventh day states:

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished,
and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God … rested … from all his
work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy…(Gen. 2:1-3)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth
creationists believe the seventh day of God’s rest was a 24-hour period. Based
on the statement in Exodus 20:11 (ESV), “For
in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,
and rested the seventh day,” they maintain the creation “week” was a period
of seven 24-hour days.

Old-Earth View

Old-earth
creationists contend the seventh day is an ongoing period. Although God
continues His providential work of preserving and governing His creation, He is
at rest in the sense that He is no longer creating. Because the seventh day is
a period of indeterminate length, they argue this is evidence the other
creation days are not 24-hour periods.

Exegetical Support

The seventh day
lacks the concluding “evening/morning” refrain found in the narratives of the
other creation days. This indicates God’s Sabbath rest is ongoing. Since God’s
Sabbath rest is unending, the seventh day must be unending.98 The New Testament confirms the seventh day of God’s rest is an ongoing reality.99 For example in Hebrews, God invites us, present tense, to join Him in His
Sabbath rest:

For we who have believed enter that rest, as he said, ‘As I swore in my
wrath, They shall not enter my rest,’ although his works were finished from the
foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this
way: ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.’ And again in this
passage he said, ‘They shall not enter my rest.' (Hebrews 4:3-5, ESV).

The English
translation of Exodus 20:11, “For in six
days the LORD made the heavens and earth...” makes make it sound as though
God created everything within the confines of six calendar-days. However, the
preposition “in” does not appear in
the original Hebrew.100 Rather, the verse is more correctly translated, “For six yôms the LORD made...” The addition of “in” originated with the King James Version translation and “played
a significant role in the advocacy of the creation days being completed within
144 hours (6x24).”101 When the verse is correctly translated, it is clear the creation “days” could
have been long time periods.

The reference to the
Sabbath in Exodus 20 seems to refer to the pattern
of “days,” not their duration.102 The emphasis is on the pattern of
work and rest, a ratio of six to one, not on the length of the creation days.
Exodus 20:9 addresses the work-week of humans (seven 24-hour days); Exodus
20:11 addresses the work-week of God (seven time periods). Thus, as Hebrew
scholar Gleason Archer notes: “By no means does this [Exodus 20:9-11]
demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days,’ any
more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the
wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.”103 In Leviticus 25:4 the pattern of one
out of seven is duplicated with six years of planting the land and one year of
“Sabbath rest for the land.”104 This further demonstrates the analogy of our Sabbath to God’s Sabbath does not
demand that the creation “week” consisted of seven 24-hour days.105

DEATH BEFORE THE FALL

For centuries, the
traditional young-earth view included a belief in 24-hour creation days, the
creation of Adam & Eve six-to-ten thousand years ago, and that Noah’s flood
was global. It was only in the mid-20th century that modern young-earth creationism added “no
death before the Fall” as a matter of doctrinal orthodoxy.106 Although the death-before-the-fall issue does not directly pertain to the
creation days, it is an important aspect of the young-earth/old-earth debate.

In the young-earth
view, God’s declaration in Genesis 1:31 that everything He had made was “very
good” eliminates the possibility of pain, suffering and carnivorous activity
prior to the Fall. Young-earth creationists Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson state
the idea of animal death before the Fall “goes directly against the teaching of
the Bible and dishonors the character of God.”107 Similarly Henry Morris writes, “The Bible is quite explicit in teaching that
there was no suffering or death of sentient life in the world before man
brought sin into the world.”108

The old-earth view
is that Adam’s sin resulted in the spiritual
death of mankind followed (eventually) by physical death. Thus, animal
death occurred long before the creation of mankind and was not a result of the
Fall. To examine this issue, it is important to first consider God’s warning to
Adam in Genesis 2:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,
‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of knowledge
of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you
shall surely die.’ (Genesis
2:16-17, NASB)

In this passage, God
tells Adam, “you shall surely die.”
Animal death is neither stated nor implied. Both young-earth and old-earth
advocates also agree the death God imposed was spiritual death. Young-earth creationist John MacArthur writes, “Spiritually, our first parents did die
in the very same day they partook of the forbidden fruit. But physically, their
lives were graciously prolonged.”109 Old-earth creationist Gleason Archer writes, “The death that overtook the
guilty pair that day was spiritual only;
physical death did not come until centuries later... They were plunged
immediately into a state of spiritual death.”110 It is curious then, why young-earth creationists insist the command included
the death of animals.

Young-earth creationists
often quote a portion of Romans 5:12 to support their claim that animal death
was the result of the Fall: “Through one
man sin entered the world and death through sin…” However, it is important
to examine the complete verse which reads: “Therefore,
just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in
this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12, NASB).
This clearly states death came to all “men.” “Men” comes from the Greek word anthrōpos, meaning “a human being,
male or female, in distinction from animals.”111 Why did death come to men? Because through Adam all men (anthrōpos) sinned, resulting in man’s spiritual and physical
death. Animal death is neither stated nor implied.

Respected
theologians agree with this view. For example, referring to Romans 5:12, James
Montgomery Boice states: “But this [death] does not really pertain to the
animal realm, in that animals do not have God-consciousness... [It] is
conceivable that animals could be created to enjoy a normal lifespan and then
to die without having any of the judgmental qualities death has for man.”112 Similarly, young-earth creationist Louis Berkof states: “All of this does not
mean, however, that there may not have been death in some sense of the word in the
lower creation apart from sin...”113

Another verse often
used by young-earth creationists to claim all death arose from Adam’s Fall is 1
Corinthians 15:21: “For since by a man
came death.” Once again, it is important to examine the entire verse: “For since by a man came death, by a man also
came the resurrection of the dead. For as Adam all die, so in Christ all shall
be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) This verse tells us human death
came about by Adam and that humans (anthropos)
will be made alive through Christ. The context pertains exclusively to human
death and resurrection because it is clear that animals will not be “made
alive” through Christ’s atoning death.

Young-earth
creationists also use Romans 8:20-22 to suggest animal death and even a decaying
universe were caused by Adam’s sin:114

For
the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the
will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be
liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of
the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in
the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. (Romans 8:20-22)

However, this
interpretation clearly goes beyond the text, because Adam’s sin and the Fall
are not directly referenced and animal death is not even mentioned. The context
of Romans 8 is the ultimate glorification of mankind (verses 19, 21) and the
hope that the creation, likewise, will be liberated from decay. The
“frustration” or “futility” of the creation (Greek mataiotēs) is its “frailty, emptiness, and transitoriness,”115 which will some day be swallowed up when the present creation is replaced with
a new creation–“the heavens will pass
away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved”
(2 Peter 3:10).

Further, the Bible
tells us the creation was subject to decay from the beginning. For example, in Psalms we are told: “Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish... they will all
wear out like a garment... they will pass away” (Psalm 102:25-26). As James
Montgomery Boice explains, “The cosmos is decaying or running down. This is
called the second law of thermodynamics... One day the sun will use up its
energy and be gone. The whole universe is like that. It is all running down,
dissipating... It is not only the sun that is dying, of course, living
creatures die, too.”116

Finally, it is
important to note that animal predation and death are extolled in Scripture as
part of God’s creation. The claim that God’s “very good” creation had no animal
death is contradicted by Job 38:39, wherein God glories in his ability to
provide prey for the lion:

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or
satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie
in wait in their lair?... The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high... Spies
out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And where
the slain are, there is he.
(Job 38:39-14, 39:27-30)

Psalm 104:21 also expresses the same idea:

The beasts of the forest prowl about. The
young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God... In wisdom you
have created them all...(Psalm 104:20-24)

Regarding the issue
of animal predation Augustine writes: “One might ask why brute beasts inflict
injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a
punishment... The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of
another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.”117 Seen in this light, animal predation and death are simply God’s loving
provision for the animal kingdom. Keep in mind that only Adam and Eve were
granted eternal life through the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden (Gen.
2:9). Since the animals did not have access to the “tree,” they had no way to
avoid death.

It should also be
noted that prior to the creation of
Eve and before the Fall, God brought
the animals to Adam to name. The names Adam chose clearly suggest he was
familiar with animal predation and death. For example, the Hebrew word for lion
(‘arly, Strong’s number H738) means
“in the sense of violence;” cormorant (shalak,
H7994) means “bird of prey;” hawk (nets,
H5322) means “unclean bird of prey;” eagle (nesher,
H5404) means “to lacerate;” owl (tachmac,
H8464) means “do violence to.”118 These names indicate Adam had observed firsthand these flesh-eating predators
inflicting suffering and death on each other in God’s “very good” creation, prior to the Fall.

Some young-earth
creationists suggest wild animals (Hebrew chay)
were originally created vegetarian, based on their interpretation of Genesis
1:30. However, nothing in Scripture suggests a rapid post-Fall transformation
of vegetarian creatures into carnivores. Vegetarian herbivores are designed
with flat molars and jaws that move in a circular motion to grind food,
ruminant stomachs, and digestive systems capable of digesting cellulose from
plants. Carnivores have sharp teeth and claws, specialized digestive systems,
and finely-programmed hunting instincts.119 Evolutionary theory cannot account for such rapid transformation and neither
can Scripture, since these changes had to occur after Day Six and the Fall, which according to young-earth
chronology is no more than ten thousand years ago.

Conclusion

This paper has
attempted to provide cogent arguments for old-earth creationism based on the
Hebrew text of Genesis. Reasons often cited to support the young-earth view
fade in the light of newer scholarship that has superseded Lightfoot and
Ussher’s mid-17th century calculations. In addition, Hebrew
linguists acknowledge “day” (yôm),
even when accompanied by ordinals and the “evening and morning” refrain, does
not necessarily refer to a 24-hour day. Yôm
can most definitely refer to a long “day-age” or epoch, and creation can literally be said to have occurred long
ages ago.

The “creation
science” and “flood geology” used to justify young-earth creationism is widely
regarded as pseudoscience. This reflects negatively on Christianity and may contribute
to the 70-to-80 percent attrition rate of young Christians after they enter
college.120 As Gleason Archer once asked, “Who can
calculate the large numbers of college students who have turned away from the
Bible altogether by the false impression that it bounds the conscience of the
believer to the 24-hour Day theory?”121 This is clearly something that must be considered in judging the contrasting
creationist views.

Well before Big Bang
cosmology proved a creation billions of years old, Charles Hodge (1797-1878), a
very conservative theologian, wrote the following:

“It is of course admitted that, taking the
[Genesis creation] account by itself, it would be most natural to understand
the word [“day”] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic
account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then
it is obligatory on us to adopt that other [view]. . . The Church has been
forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate
the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing any violence
to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority.”122

Science is respected
and holds a prominent place in our culture. That doesn’t mean that science is
always correct. However, where mainstream science can be used to defend
biblical creation, we should take advantage of that opportunity rather than
relying on pseudoscience. For example, here are several statements by
mainstream scientists that clearly support the biblical worldview:

The
Big Bang creation: “There is
no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the
Christian notion of creation from nothing.” (George Smoot, Astronomer, U.C.
Berkeley, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2006)123

Design
of the Universe: “Astronomy
leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one
with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions
required to permit life, and one which as an underlying (one might say,
‘supernatural’) plan.” (Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize, Physics)124

Origin
of Life: “An honest man,
armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some
sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to almost be a miracle, so many
are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
(Francis Crick, Co-discoverer of DNA)125

And,

“Precious
little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on earth. If one
counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give
rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings
turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000.” (Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Professor & Chairman, Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy,
University College,
Wales)126

Problems
with Evolution: “It remains
true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and
families and nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in
the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual,
completely continuous transitional sequences.” (Stephen J. Gould,
Paleontologist, Harvard)127

And,

“Unfortunately,
the origins of most higher categories [of life] are shrouded in mystery:
Commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without
evidence of transitional forms.” (Colin Patterson, Senior paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History,
London)128

Perhaps it is now
time for Bible-believing evangelicals to heed the words of the late Gleason
Archer, noted Hebrew linguist and co-author of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament regarding the age of the
earth debate:

“Moses never intended the creative days to be
understood as a mere twenty-four hours in length, and the information he
included in chapter 2 logically precludes us from doing so. It is only by a
neglect of proper hermeneutical methods that this impression ever became
prevalent among God’s people, during the post-biblical era. Entirely apart from
any findings of modern science or challenges of contemporary scientism, the
twenty-four hour theory was never correct and should never have been believed –
except by those who are bent on proving the presence of genuine contradictions
in Scripture.”129

Other Resources

Dr. Ross looks the creation date controversy from a biblical,
historical, and scientific perspective. Most of the book deals with what
the Bible has to say about the days of creation. Ross concludes that
biblical models of creation should be tested through the whole of
scripture and the revelations of nature.

This book, written for Christians, examines creation paradigms
on the basis of what scripture says. Many Christians assume that the young earth
"perfect paradise" paradigm is based upon what the Bible says. In reality, the
"perfect paradise" paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in
its underlying assumptions that it forces upon a "Christian" worldview. Under
the "perfect paradise" paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor
designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of
Adam and Eve. God is forced to come up with "plan B," in which He vindictively
creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity
for their sin. Young earth creationists inadvertently buy into the atheistic
worldview that suffering could not have been the original intent of God, stating
that the earth was created "for our pleasure." However, the Bible says
that God created carnivores, and that the death of animals and plants was part
of God's original design for the earth.

References

J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall quoted
in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the
Days of Creation, David G. Hagopian, Editor (Mission Viejo, CA:
Crux Press, Inc., 2001), 31.

Some young-earth creationists claim God
created light from distant stars “in transit,” thereby giving the universe only
the “appearance of age.” However, if God did that, then He had to create
deceptive history and events that never occurred, an example being Supernova
1987A. Light from Supernova 1987A, which was 168,000 light-years from earth,
reached earth in 1987. If the exploding star never actually existed and God
only created the light in-transit, that suggests deception on the part of God
which goes against Romans 1:20.

Ancient seas once covered the earth. Due to geologic processes involving plate
tectonics and mountain-building, the ancient sea beds were gradually thrust
upward, resulting in seashells and fossilized sea life being found in all
sedimentary layers, including mountain tops. The geologic column, comprised of
distinctly separated layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, volcanic ash, etc,
contains fossilized remains of dead animals AND evidence of living animals.
Fossilized footprints of living animals are sandwiched in between layers
containing dead animals. Clearly a cataclysmic flood of short duration cannot
account for such formations.

Some young-earth creationists have adopted Russell Humphreys’ Starlight and Time model, a complex
theory suggesting the heavens and earth were created at the same time using
some sort of “white hole” cosmology. In this theory, 10 to 14 billion years of
time elapsed as measured by a “clock” in the distant universe, while only 6,000
years of time elapsed as measured by clocks in the vicinity of earth. The
discrepancy between the two clocks relates to the existence of an “event
horizon” that propagates out of the center of the universe. There is no
accepted scientific evidence for this model.

Biblical Hebrew verb “tenses” do not express the time when an event happens, but merely the state of action. Verbs in
biblical Hebrew only indicate complete finished action (perfect “tense”) or incomplete unfinished action (imperfect
“tense”). A completed action may have been completed in the near past (and
instant ago), the distant past (eons ago), or even the future. English
translations of Hebrew verbs add “when” information that is not included in the
original Hebrew meaning. For more information, read Whitefield, Reading Genesis One: Comparing Biblical
Hebrew with English Translation.

C. John Collins is Professor of Old Testament, and department chair at Covenant
Theological Seminary. He served as chairman of the Old Testament Committee for
the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible and holds a PhD in Hebrew
linguistics.

Scientists agree with Job’s description. In Life
As We Do Not Know It (Viking: 2005, pp 27-30), author Peter Ward describes
the early earth as follows: “. . . thick, roiling atmosphere of steam and
carbon dioxide filled the skies . . .
planet-smothering cloud of water vapor . . . the sun would appear much dimmer .
. . it had to shine through a poisonous, riled atmosphere composed of billowing
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, steam, and methane.”

The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days
of Creation, 125.

Ibid, 148. Note: The Hebrew word ’olam
is sometimes claimed to mean a long time period. However, Hebrew lexicons show
that only in post-biblical writings
did ’olam refer to a long age or
epoch. In biblical times it meant “forever,” “perpetual,” lasting,” always,” or
“the remote past.”

John MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning: Creation,
Evolution, and the Bible (W. Publishing Group, 2001), 56, 98.

The information encoded within DNA, even in the most primitive plant life, is
one of the strongest evidences for God. In either creationist view, the growth,
metabolism, and reproduction of plants require information encoded within DNA.
The genetic code, like any language or code, requires a pre-existing
“programmer” or Intelligence. Science has no explanation for the complex
specified information encoded within the DNA of living organisms.

Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, How
the Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Third Edition (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2003), 23.

Collins, 47.

Whitefield, 111, 113.

MacArthur, 124.

Whitefield, 113.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,
2528b.

Collins, 48.

Whitefield, 115.

Ibid., 111, 113.

Collins, 47; Whitefield, 120.

Whitefield, 113. Precise meanings may be obscured due to the chain of translation
from the original biblical Hebrew, to Greek Septuagint, to Latin Vulgate, to
English Wycliffe, to English Tyndale, to King James Version, and finally to
modern English translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc).

Whitefield, 114.

Whitefield, 113-114.

MacArthur,
158.

Scientific evidence indicates relatively recent appearance of humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) on Earth,
estimated to be in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 years ago. For further study,
see Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross, Who Was
Adam? (Colorado Springs,
CO: NavPress, 2005), 45.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,
208a.

Ibid., 2177a.

Ibid., 644a.

For those not familiar with Biblical Hebrew, verbs have no tense and do not
tell you “when” an action takes place, only that an action is either complete or incomplete. For additional information, see Whitefield, pages
54-55.